2+2=4 is a fact. A universal fact. an absolute fact one would say. But informationally (if I may make my own words) speaking, it is limited.
Let me be a bit clearer.
Someone, somewhere, someday wrote an equation, 2x + 3y = 5; they tried multiple values of x and y, and found that it looked like a line.
Someone else, tried out another equation, 3x + 8y = 24, and they realized this equation also looked like a line when it was plotted.
Someone then tried this with a few more numbers and realized, that a line looks like this
ax + by = c where a,b,c are constants, and x,y are real numbers.
This new equation with variables, was informationally superior to 2+2=4. It related a set of numbers instead of just a couple of specific numbers, and it defined properties of theirs.
However, it added variables, or uncertain numbers to the equation, and for it to be true, it defined domains for those variables. Thus, one could argue, trading off certainty or even even absolute-ness for information or context. Many a fools will argue that the equation is not true, because they'll use the values of the variables that lie outside the defined domain.
They may argue, this equation is not good enough, because it doesn't work for complex numbers. You could tell them how this equation is not meant to, but in an irrational argument it would be in vain.
Now imagine, the ultimate equation, an equation, using which you could create any figure or define any shape.
I think a few things that are going to be true about that equation are :
1) It will have a LOT of variables. (I mean it has to explain everything)
2) It will seem to be very vague.
3) To return a single point, it will need the values of a large number of variables;
corollary : in the absence of which it can only return equations. Smaller equations probably, but equations nevertheless.
Yet we call it the ultimate equation, because it defines everything.
Thus we gained information, but basically lost all the comfortable certainty.
For a person comfortable with the certainty of lines or numbers, this might be a tad bit more than they are willing to handle.
That's religion vs the truth for you.
Most religions are just a few factual expressions. 2+3 =5, 7/2 is 3.5. There are a few equations thrown in; if x+y = 4 and x +2y = 10, then x=-2 and y=6.
But more often than not, they miss being specific enough to define the limit/domain of their x's and y's. Leading people to do a lot of flawed maths.
That's the nature of the absolute truth about life. It's not a universal fact. It's a complex equation; consisting of a billion variables, full of abstract concepts, that can only take shape when you put in all the variables.
And worst of all, it doesn't stick in the mind like 2+2=4 does.
Let me be a bit clearer.
Someone, somewhere, someday wrote an equation, 2x + 3y = 5; they tried multiple values of x and y, and found that it looked like a line.
Someone else, tried out another equation, 3x + 8y = 24, and they realized this equation also looked like a line when it was plotted.
Someone then tried this with a few more numbers and realized, that a line looks like this
ax + by = c where a,b,c are constants, and x,y are real numbers.
This new equation with variables, was informationally superior to 2+2=4. It related a set of numbers instead of just a couple of specific numbers, and it defined properties of theirs.
However, it added variables, or uncertain numbers to the equation, and for it to be true, it defined domains for those variables. Thus, one could argue, trading off certainty or even even absolute-ness for information or context. Many a fools will argue that the equation is not true, because they'll use the values of the variables that lie outside the defined domain.
They may argue, this equation is not good enough, because it doesn't work for complex numbers. You could tell them how this equation is not meant to, but in an irrational argument it would be in vain.
Now imagine, the ultimate equation, an equation, using which you could create any figure or define any shape.
I think a few things that are going to be true about that equation are :
1) It will have a LOT of variables. (I mean it has to explain everything)
2) It will seem to be very vague.
3) To return a single point, it will need the values of a large number of variables;
corollary : in the absence of which it can only return equations. Smaller equations probably, but equations nevertheless.
Yet we call it the ultimate equation, because it defines everything.
Thus we gained information, but basically lost all the comfortable certainty.
For a person comfortable with the certainty of lines or numbers, this might be a tad bit more than they are willing to handle.
That's religion vs the truth for you.
Most religions are just a few factual expressions. 2+3 =5, 7/2 is 3.5. There are a few equations thrown in; if x+y = 4 and x +2y = 10, then x=-2 and y=6.
But more often than not, they miss being specific enough to define the limit/domain of their x's and y's. Leading people to do a lot of flawed maths.
That's the nature of the absolute truth about life. It's not a universal fact. It's a complex equation; consisting of a billion variables, full of abstract concepts, that can only take shape when you put in all the variables.
And worst of all, it doesn't stick in the mind like 2+2=4 does.
Comments
Also, sometimes it will do wonky things like 4 = -1 and we later realize that it's actually not true. I'm not sure if this is just because the value of 4 changed, or because religion had it wrong all along. Gets down to what "=" really means I guess?
Also, definitely depends which religion. People like to believe all religions are the same, but that's not true either.
Like 2x + 3y = 5 if x = 1 and y = 1 is fact, and is also the solution that stares out at you, but it holds for a whole lot of other values of x and y.
Time is my opinion is like the variable in the equation, as it changes, the equation equals different things.
It's actually a lot more complicated than just that.
I suppose you could see why I wrote the 2 lines I did above.